Sounds good to me. Let me know when you have the fork ready, and we can start hacking away on it. Having a public site up will be a great for getting feedback on the direction.
Speaking of docstrings, what are your thoughts on the current docstring format? On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 1:58:51 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: > > I forgot to add number zero: make sure all the existing modules have > complete docstrings! I'd rather focus on that before anything else. > > But yeah, I'm interested in doing a lot or most of this. Remember that > there's no risk of breaking the existing docs, because the API rst files > are already valid. > > Your proposal is a good one. Let's do that. I can use my fork and just > host the static site on GitHub Pages. > > On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:02:53 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >> >> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me (espeically #4), but I admit I'm not as >> familiar with documentation as I should be. >> It would be ideal to start hacking on this without breaking the existing >> docs, which are being automatically built by Read the Docs. By the way I >> believe Rob has set this up, and has ownership of that Read the Docs >> account. (It was set up before I started contributing). >> >> There are Sphinx patches included with pyglet to handle the event stuff, >> but we probably should check if they're even needed anymore with recent >> versions. >> >> If you are feeling up to spearheading this effort, I'm happy to work with >> you on it. Maybe we can work off of a fork to start, and set up a temporary >> online docs page. Does that make sense, or what would be easiest? >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:26:13 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> In my ideal world, the pyglet project would take the following steps: >>> >>> 1. "Freeze" the current contents of doc/api. All further updates will be >>> done by hand. >>> 2. Check each page by hand. Make any relevant cleanup tweaks. From what >>> I can see now, this mostly involves getting rid of bogus "Variables" and >>> "Defines" sections that just list random imports from `future`. >>> 3. When it looks good, delete all the doc/api-generating code and just >>> make sure API updates are reflected in the docs. >>> 4. Go to town updating each individual page to be as good as it can >>> possibly be! Module pages can become more topic-oriented where appropriate, >>> rather than having a hard divide between "programming guide" and "API >>> reference." Django is a good example of this, although they take it too far >>> for my taste. Some of the pyglet modules already do a good job. >>> >>> The current system is actually really nice in that you've already got >>> valid rst, you just need to stop doing the intermediate step! By removing >>> the rst-generating step, you just end up with a working set of rst files. >>> >>> It might sound like you'll lose time manually tweaking the rst files >>> over time, but in practice it's adding/removing an `..autoclass::` here and >>> there, and you more than make up for it in reduced time spent fighting with >>> the tools. (Spread out over newbie contributors like me, of course!) >>> >>> Speaking of event documentation specifically, it's definitely very >>> important! But it's exactly the kind of thing you can handle with a Sphinx >>> extension rather than a preprocessing step, which I believe is what is >>> already happening. You might not need to make any changes at all. But if >>> you do, I have a lot of experience writing Sphinx extensions from scratch >>> and can probably help out. >>> >>> What that looks like in practice is that you'll have a class docstring >>> with a directive like this: >>> >>> .. pyglet:event:: on_eos >>> >>> Fires when the current source ends. >>> >>> You can make the HTML look pretty much however you want. The mrjob >>> project uses it to define[1] and collect[2] command line options. I wrote >>> the extension[3] to make it trivial for documentation authors. (I disliked >>> the experience so much I wrote a competing documentation system[4], but I >>> wouldn't try to convince you to switch.) >>> >>> [1] >>> http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-hadoopy-runners.html#option-check_input_paths >>> [2] http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-reference.html >>> [3] https://github.com/Yelp/mrjob/blob/master/docs/options_extension.py >>> [4] http://steveasleep.com/computerwords/ >>> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey Steve, >>>> >>>> No offense taken here! I'm very much in support of improving the >>>> maintainability of the documentation, and lowering barriers to >>>> contributing. I'd ask Rob, Leif and others to chime in here with their own >>>> opinions of course, but I think everyone would agree that improvements are >>>> good. >>>> >>>> For my part, I'm more than willing to put in the manual work of >>>> cleaning up and rewriting docstrings if necessary. I'm not intimately >>>> familiar with the documentation, but I know the one concern we have is >>>> that >>>> the event classes are documented correctly. I'm not sure if this is >>>> something that is now able to be handled py Sphinx without patching, but >>>> maybe so. >>>> >>>> What would you say is a good path forward? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:46:29 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just realized my first sentence might sound a bit ungrateful, but I >>>>> promise that is not the case. I'm just trying to make a point and express >>>>> my opinions about best practices. :-) >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:45:47 PM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I just spent some time improving some of the docs, and I must stay, I >>>>>> am moderately horrified at the autogenerated rst files. Why not just >>>>>> write >>>>>> them by hand like everybody else and use autoclass/:members:? It's not >>>>>> at >>>>>> all onerous to keep them up to date. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who writes a LOT of Python docs, largely for fun ( >>>>>> https://mrjob.readthedocs.io, https://pillow.readthedocs.io, >>>>>> http://steveasleep.com/clubsandwich, ...) this honestly makes me >>>>>> hesitant to put a lot of effort into contributing, because it's an >>>>>> unusual >>>>>> and limiting way to do things. >>>>>> >>>>>> The epydoc layout of one class per page with a strict structure of >>>>>> [inheritance, methods, attributes] is not good for discovery or inline >>>>>> narrative documentation. And the intermediate api/*.txt-generating layer >>>>>> is >>>>>> both a barrier to contribution, and limits the flexibility of the >>>>>> individual pages. >>>>>> >>>>>> So above and beyond fixing the many, many missing docstrings, my >>>>>> number one request (which I would gladly do myself!) is that the API >>>>>> docs >>>>>> be switched over a more conventional Sphinx setup. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:54:05 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found the markdown files on your github. They'll probably need a >>>>>>> few paragraphs adjusted to fit the rest of the documentation, but it's >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> good addition and certainly better than what we have now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was also looking through some old conversations on the mailing >>>>>>> list, and it looks like we can remove a lot of old epydoc cruft from >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> codebase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's in Markdown. I'm sure something like Pandoc could convert it >>>>>>>> with good fidelity. It also has a sample code repo. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:42:59 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the offer Steve. I think we talked about this in the >>>>>>>>> past but didn't follow up. >>>>>>>>> It would be a good first step to dump your site into rst, and then >>>>>>>>> edit it from there. >>>>>>>>> The raw site wouldn't happen to be in rst already, would it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:59:39 AM UTC+9, Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am interested in helping out with this. I've been a pyglet user >>>>>>>>>> since 2008 and always thought the docs were pretty bad in comparison >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> projects of similar size and maturity. My own best documentation >>>>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>>>> this: http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the current pyglet docs do not actually document >>>>>>>>>> all the APIs! You have to read the source code and see the old >>>>>>>>>> epydoc >>>>>>>>>> docstrings, or at least this was true as of a few weeks ago. The >>>>>>>>>> media.Player class in particular has this problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am the author of this out-of-date tutorial: >>>>>>>>>> http://steveasleep.com/pyglettutorial.html >>>>>>>>>> Now that pyglet is being maintained again, I would love to just >>>>>>>>>> contribute the tutorial to the actual docs and redirect my page. And >>>>>>>>>> when I >>>>>>>>>> get some time, I will help fill out the rest of the pyglet docs. But >>>>>>>>>> I can >>>>>>>>>> make no promises about when that will be. :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:34:30 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking for ideas for how the pyglet documentation can be >>>>>>>>>>> improved, both in terms of missing things or sections that should >>>>>>>>>>> be added. >>>>>>>>>>> I've personally always found the technical aspects of the >>>>>>>>>>> documentation to be quite good, but I hear often that the >>>>>>>>>>> documentation as >>>>>>>>>>> a whole is not so clear for new users. >>>>>>>>>>> In particular, the "writing a pyglet application" section is >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps a bit to light. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Better than suggestions would be if anyone wants to get involved >>>>>>>>>>> with writing something new or improving existing sections. Please >>>>>>>>>>> let me >>>>>>>>>>> know if you're interested in getting involved. Even if you're not >>>>>>>>>>> comfortable with making pull requests, I'd be more than happy to >>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>> directly with you to handle contributions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Ben >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
